Dissatisfied with just refund for fake Rolex, Kerala bizman sues seller, wins

Key points

• In its order, the commission held all parties jointly and severally liable, directing them to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation…
• Soon, a Rolex Cosmograph Daytona Oyster 40mm in yellow gold with a black dial, arrived at his doorstep.
• Advocates Sreevaraham N G Mahesh and Sheeba Sivadasan represented the businessman at the hearing.
• Intrigued by an online ad during the festival season, a 45-year-old businessman in Thiruvananthapuram checked the seller’s website.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A Rolex watch for Rs 11,999! It sounded too good to be true. Intrigued by an online ad during the festival season, a 45-year-old businessman in Thiruvananthapuram checked the seller’s website. It looked genuine. The watch must be an old, discontinued model, hence the low price tag, he thought, before making the payment.

Soon, a Rolex Cosmograph Daytona Oyster 40mm in yellow gold with a black dial, arrived at his doorstep. There was just one small problem – the second hand had come loose. The businessman took the watch to a repairman. He fixed it, but then delivered the devastating news. The watch was not an original.

The businessman sent an email to the company. It promptly refunded the capital. However, there was no demand to return the watch.

After all – the businessman, feeling cheated, decided to hold the seller accountable and moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at a point where most would have stopped – he had received his capital back.

What happened

“Imagine if I had worn it to important meetings and residents recognised it as fake. I would have looked like a fool. So I decided to hold the seller accountable,” he told TNIE.

Advocates Sreevaraham N G Mahesh and Sheeba Sivadasan represented the businessman at the hearing. Opposite parties were the seller Vertex, along with payment platforms Instamojo and Mobikwik.

The seller and Instamojo did not contest the case and were set ex-parte. Mobikwik argued that it was merely a payment aggregator and had no control over the product sold. The commission rejected this, noting that Mobikwik did not produce any evidence to support its claim. It further held that refunding the money without demanding the watch back pointed to guilt.

In its order, the commission held all parties jointly and severally liable, directing them to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 as costs within a month, failing which 9% interest would apply.

The details

The case was registered in 2017 and the order came nine years later.